BEGAN RANA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY Court: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) PETITIONER is aggrieved learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar, in Cr. Appeal No.99 of 2001 / 50 of 2002, whereby the appeal filed against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 17.8.2001 passed by Sri Bipin Bihari, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhupur at Deoghar, in G.R. No.408 of 1996 / T.R. 236 of 2001, finding the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 323 and 325 of the IPC and sentencing him for the same, has been dismissed by the Appellate Court below with the modification in sentence that the petitioner was given the benefit of Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, directing him to enter into the probation bond of Rs.5,000.00 with two sureties of like amount each for maintaining peace and keeping good behaviour for one year.

(3.) IT , however, appears from the impugned Judgments that the original Sanha could not be produced in the Court below and the same was not proved, rather the true copy of the same was proved. The formal FIR was proved as exhibit ­ 4, which showed that the occurrence took place on 6.7.1986 but the FIR was lodged on 2.10.1996, but no explanation was given for delay in lodging the FIR. Learned Courts below have relied upon the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. The prosecution examined seven witnesses including the informant, the I.O. and the doctor, who had examined the informant and the doctor also proved the injury report issued by him, which showed one grievous injury on the informant in form of fracture on his right shoulder.